The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) –

A New Tool for Environmental Impact Assessment

Christopher M. R. Pastakia
VKI, Agern Alle 11, DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark
e-mail: cmp @ vki.dk

Abstract Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has progressed from the

consideration of pollution assessment, through the wider range of ecological
assessment, and has now become a ‘holistic’ EIA.
Although the quality of data analysis for EIA has improved over the
years, the judgements made in an EIA are essentially subjective. Although
these subjective conclusions can provide a suitable basis for EIA, the problem
lies in recording the transparency of the assessment. EIA evaluations need to
be re-assessed with the passage of time, and the data contained therein should
be open to scrutiny and revision, as new data become available. Wholly sub-
jective and descriptive systems are not capable of such revision, dependent as
they are on the expertise and experience of the original assessors and on the
quality of the descriptive record left behind.
The paper outlines the processes involved in a new method for EIA: the
Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM). This method seeks to overcome the
problems of recording subjective judgements by defining the criteria and scales
against which these judgements are to be made; and by placing the results in a
simple matrix that allows for a permanent record of the arguments in the judge-
ment process.

8
Introduction Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool used
in planning development strategies and projects, and its use has been
adopted into planning regulations in a number of countries, and by a
number of regional groupings and multilateral agencies (CEQ, 1978;
CEU, 1985, 1997; World Bank, 1988; DANIDA, 1994; EBRD, 1996).
EIA has progressed from the consideration of pollution assessment,
through the wider range of ecological assessment, and now is required
to consider all aspects affected by any proposed development or develop-
ment strategy: the ‘holistic’ EIA. The depth of investigation now required
of EIA has meant that the assessors are constrained by a lack of time
(for detailed quantitative data collection and analysis) and by an uncer-
tainty brought about by the need to make subjective judgements on such
acquired data. This subjectivity can provide a competent analysis of the
probable changes and effects, but suffers in that it is neither reprodu-
cible nor transparent.
It is necessary to ensure some degree of transparency and objectiv-
ity in the qualitative assessment and evaluation of the impacts on pro-
jects (in particular development projects where data may be scarce and
implementation may take a number of years). EIA evaluations need to
be re-assessed with the passage of time, and the data contained therein
should be open to scrutiny and revision, as new data becomes available.
Wholly subjective and descriptive systems are not capable of such revi-
sion, dependent as they are on the expertise and experience of the origi-
nal assessors and on the quality of the descriptive record left behind.
The shortcomings in existing EIA methods The historical
development of E IA shows that a number of attempts have been made
to improve the quality of the E IA analysis by seeking to improve the accu-
racy of the judgement, resulting in a number of formats being developed
for analysis in EIA (Wathern, 1988; Bisset, 1988). These have in some
cases provided an improvement to the analysis but have not improved
the quality of transparency of argument, neither addressed the problem
of keeping an adequate record of the E IA.
In any E IA the judgements will be subjective, either in whole or in
part. This is a consequence of many factors: the lack or inadequacy of base-
line data, the time frame provided for data acquisition and analysis, the
terms of reference provided for the EIA, and the capacity of the assessors
to cover a wide range of issues. Even where quantitative environmental
data is available, the overall use of this data requires a subjective judge-
ment of the possible impact, its spatial scale and potential magnitude. It
is this forecasting of events that underpins the subjectivity of the analysis.
Subjectivity in itself is not a bar to the use or reliance of E IA, as
comparison of alternative systems is a valid system for decision making,
provided that such comparisons are made on an equal basis. The prob-
lem with subjective judgements relies in their lack of transparency and
in the value of historic, written record.
The pattern of the final EIA report has been widely developed into
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that consist of the description of
10
the project, methods used in the E IA, the conclusions of the assessment,
together with supporting evidence and data. Most EISs will contain a non-
technical summary of the conclusions to assist decision makers, and often
it is this summary alone that forms the basis on which decisions are made
(Glasson et al., 1994).
Where E IA is a mandatory requirement, and is often carried out by
(or on behalf of) the developer, it is necessary for the competent planning
and regulatory authorities to be able to evaluate the assessment, and to
be satisfied that the technical conclusions are sound. It is difficult to eva-
luate EISs, as they are generally voluminous, with a considerable inclu-
sion of data, and no real account of the process of argument by which
judgements were arrived at. This lack of transparent record reduces the
effectiveness of the E IA, and with time often leads to a requirement for
a new assessment to be made, or for development decisions to be made
on inadequately understood and evaluated assessments.
Possible solutions to improve EIA The problem of recording
the arguments that lead to a conclusion in a subjective judgement can be
addressed by defining precisely how that judgement has been made. For
the subjectivity of judgement to become transparent, it will be necessary
to define very carefully how the analysis should be carried out, and the
criteria against which judgements are made. This requires that the criteria
for judgement can be identified and accepted in all forms of E IA.
Many of the criteria used at present to determine an impact that
may occur as a result of a development strategy or project, are well known
and accepted by most workers in the field of E IA. It is always necessary
to consider: the area likely to be affected, the degree or magnitude of the
impact, whether the change is permanent or temporary in nature, whether
the affect may be reversed, whether an impact may, with other effects, be
synergistic, and whether there is any likelihood for a cumulative effect
to develop over time.
All these criteria form areas of judgement common to most EIAs
today, yet the assessors develop the scales for describing their judgements
of the impacts against each of these criteria on an ‘ad hoc’ basis. If, how-
ever, these criteria and scales are laid down prior to the analysis, and are
common to all EIAs, then a system of understanding of the arguments
by which conclusions are arrived at can be recorded.
The process of selecting components for an EIA which are then
assessed against criteria is known as ‘scoping’. Often in the early stages
of planning, or in evaluating EIAs, it is possible to be forearmed with
specific components that should be critical to the EIA. Thus if the method
of assessment applied these known components, it would be possible to
direct data collection and analysis more effectively, and reduce the time
taken in the investigative stages of an EIA.
The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix This paper describes
a system of scoring within a matrix that has been designed to allow sub-
jective judgements to be quantitatively recorded, thus providing both an
11
impact evaluation and a record that can be re-assessed in the future.
The system is ideally suited to E IA where a multi-disciplinary team
approach is used (Morris & Biggs, 1995), as it allows for data from differ-
ent components to be analysed against common important criteria with-
in a common matrix, thus providing a rapid, clear assessment of the
major impacts.
The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) method is based on
a standard definition of the important assessment criteria as well as the
means by which semi-quantitative values for each of these criteria can
be collated to provide an accurate and independent score for each condi-
tion. The impacts of project activities are evaluated against the environ-
mental components, and for each component a score (using the defined
criteria) is determined, which provides a measure of the impact expected
from the component.
The important assessment criteria fall into two groups:
(A) Criteria that are of importance to the condition, and which
can individually change the score obtained.
(B) Criteria that are of value to the situation, but individually
should not be capable of changing the score obtained.
The value ascribed to each of these groups of criteria is determined
by the use of a series of simple formulae. These formulae allow the scores
for the individual components to be determined on a defined basis.
The scoring system requires simple multiplication of the scores
given to each of the criteria in group (A). The use of multiplier for group
(A) is important for it immediately ensures that the weight of each score
is expressed, whereas simple summation of scores could provide identical
results for different conditions.
Scores for the value criteria group (B) are added together to provide
a single sum. This ensures that the individual value scores cannot influ-
ence the overall score, but that the collective importance of all values in
group (B) are fully taken into account.
The sum of the group (B) scores is then multiplied by the result of
the group (A) scores to provide a final assessment score (ES) for the con-
dition. The process can be expressed:
(a1)(a2)  aT
(b1)(b2)(b3)  bT
(aT)(bT)  ES
where
(a1) and (a2) are the individual criteria scores for group (A)
(b1) to (b3) are the individual criteria scores for group (B)
aT is the result of multiplication of all (A) scores
bT is the result of summation of all (B) scores
ES is the assessment score for the condition.
Positive and negative impacts can be demonstrated by using scales
that pass from negative to positive values through zero for the group (A)
criteria. Zero thus becomes the ‘no-change’ or ‘no-importance’ value. The
12
use of zero in this way in group (A) criteria allows a single criterion to iso-
late conditions which show no change or are unimportant to the analysis.
Zero is a value avoided in the group (B) criteria. If all group (B) cri-
teria score zero, the final result of the ES will also be zero. This condition
may occur even where the group (A) criteria show a condition of impor-
tance that should be recognised. To avoid this, scales for group (B) crite-
ria use ‘1’ as the ‘no-change/no-importance’ score.
Assessment criteria The criteria should be defined for both
groups, and should be based on fundamental conditions that may be
affected by change rather than be related to individual projects. It is
theoretically possible to define a number of criteria, but two principles
should always be satisfied:
1. The universality of the criterion, to allow it to be used in differ-
ent E IAs.
2. The value of the criterion, which determines whether it should
be treated as a Group (A) or Group (B) condition.
At this point only five criteria have been developed for use in the
RIAM. Nevertheless, these five criteria represent the most important
fundamental assessment conditions for all EIAs, and satisfy the princi-
ples set out above. These criteria, together with their appropriate judge-
ment scores are defined as:
Group (A) criteria
Importance of condition (A1) A measure of the importance of the
condition, which is assessed against the spatial boundaries or human inter-
ests it will affect. The scales are defined:
4  important to national/international interests
3  important to regional/national interests
2  important to areas immediately outside the local condition
1  important only to the local condition
0  no importance.
Magnitude of change/effect (A2) Magnitude is defined as a
measure of the scale of benefit/dis-benefit of an impact or a condition:
3  major positive benefit
2  significant improvement in status quo
1  improvement in status quo
0  no change/status quo
1  negative change to status quo
2  significant negative dis-benefit or change
3  major dis-benefit or change.
13

Group (B) criteria
Permanence (B1) This defines whether a condition is temporary or
permanent, and should be seen only as a measure of the temporal status
of the condition.(e.g.: an embankment is a permanent condition even if
it may one day be breached or abandoned; whilst a coffer dam is a tem-
porary condition, as it will be removed).
1  no change/not applicable
2  temporary
3  permanent.
Reversibility (B2) This defines whether the condition can be changed
and is a measure of the control over the effect of the condition. It should
not be confused or equated with permanence. (e.g.: an accidental toxic
spillage into a river is a temporary condition (B1) but its effect (death of
fish) is irreversible (B2); a town’s sewage treatment works is a permanent
condition (B1), the effect of its effluent can be changed (reversible con-
dition) (B2)).
1  no change/not applicable
2  reversible
3  irreversible.
Cumulative (B3) This is a measure of whether the effect will have a
single direct impact or whether there will be a cumulative effect over time,
or a synergistic effect with other conditions. The cumulative criterion is
a means of judging the sustainability of a condition, and is not to be
confused with a permanent/irreversible situation. For instance, the death
of an old animal is both permanent and irreversible, but non-cumulative
as the animal can be considered to have already passed its breeding capa-
bilities. The loss of post-larval shrimp in the wild, is also permanent and
irreversible, but in this case cumulative, as all subsequent generations
that the larvae (as adults) may have initiated will also have been lost.
1  no change/not applicable
2  non-cumulative/single
3  cumulative/synergistic
It is possible to change the cumulative component to one of syn-
ergism, if the condition warrens consideration of additive affects.
Environmental components The RIAM requires specific assess-
ment components to be defined through a process of scoping; and these
environmental components fall into one of four categories, which are
defined as follows:
Physical /chemical Covering all physical and chemical aspects of
the environment, including finite (non-biological) natural resources, and
degradation of the physical environment by pollution.
14
Biological / ecological Covering all biological aspects of the envi-
ronment, including renewable natural resources, conservation of biodi-
versity, species interactions, and pollution of the biosphere.
Sociological / cultural Covering all human aspects of the environ-
ment, including social issues affecting individuals and communities;
together with cultural aspects, including conservation of heritage, and
human development.
Economic / operational To qualitatively identify the economic con-
sequences of environmental change, both temporary and permanent, as
well as the complexities of project management within the context of
the project activities.
The use of these four categories can be, in itself, a competent tool
for EIA, though each category can be further sub-divided to identify spe-
cific environmental components that better demonstrate the possible
impacts. The degree of sensitivity and detail of the system can thus be
controlled by the selection and definition process for these environmen-
tal components.
Ranges To use the evaluation system described, a matrix is produced
for each project option (Table 1). The matrix comprises of cells showing
the criteria used, set against each defined component. Within each cell
the individual criteria scores are set down. From the formulae given above
each ES number is calculated and recorded.
No claim is made for the sensitivity of any ES value, and to provide
a more certain system of assessment, the individual ES scores are banded
together into ranges (Range values: RV) where they can be compared
(Table 2).
Ranges are defined by conditions that act as markers for the change
in bands. These conditions would normally reflect the changes in group
(A) scores, combined with the upper or lower scores possible with the
group (B) criteria.
Conditions have been defined to produce a range covering 5, and
the limits of the bands in this range can be defined as follows:
• Conditions that have neither importance nor magnitude will
score a zero, and can be banded together. Any condition in this
band is either of no importance, or represents the status quo, or
a no change situation.
• A condition that is local in importance (A2 1), and a slight
change from the status quo (A2 1), yet is permanent (B1 3),
irreversible (B2  3) and cumulative (B3  3), represents the upper
limit of the ‘slight change’ condition.
• A condition of ‘change’ will occur up to a condition of local
importance (A11) with significant magnitude (A2  2), that is
permanent (B1 3), irreversible (B2  3) and cumulative (B3  3).
• A condition of moderate change will lie between the limits of
change’ and ‘significant change’.
15
 • The lower limits of ‘significant change’ can be taken as the point
Table 1. RIAM matrix. when a condition is outside local boundaries (A1 2) but is of
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
major importance (A2  3), yet is temporary (B1 2), reversible
Project option (B2  2) and non-cumulative (B3  2).
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
• A ‘major change’ will occur at a point when the condition extends
Physical / chemical components to a regional/national boundary (A1 3) and is of major impor-
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
tance (A2  3). Such a change would also be permanent (B1 3),
P/C P/C P/C P/C . . . . . . . . . . . —> irreversible (B2  3), though it could be non-cumulative (B3  2).
A1 A1 A1 A1 . . . . . . . . . . . —>
A2 A2 A2 A2 . . . . . . . . . . . —> Once the ES score is set into a range band, these can be shown indi-
B1 B1 B1 B1 . . . . . . . . . . . —> vidually or grouped according to component type and presented in what-
B2 B2 B2 B2 . . . . . . . . . . . —> ever graphical or numeric form that the presentation requires. The full
B3 B3 B3 B3 . . . . . . . . . . . —> EIA report will detail the criteria used, the components derived after
ES 0 ES 0 ES 0 ES 0 . . . . . . . . . . . —> scoping, the RIAM matrix, and the presentation of the RIAM results –
RV RV RV RV . . . . . . . . . . . —> together with the normal baseline information, conclusions and sug-
gested mitigation.
Biological / ecological components Table 2. Range bands used for RIAM
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
B/E B/E B/E B/E . . . . . . . . . . . —> RIAM Range value Range value
A1 A1 A1 A1 . . . . . . . . . . . —> Environmental (RV) (RV)
A2 A2 A2 A2 . . . . . . . . . . . —> Score (ES) (Alphabetic) (Numeric) Description of range band
B1 B1 B1 B1 . . . . . . . . . . . –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
—>
108 to 72 E 5 Major positive change/impact
B2 B2 B2 B2 . . . . . . . . . . . —> 71 to 36 D 4 Significant positive change/impact
B3 B3 B3 B3 . . . . . . . . . . . —> 35 to 19 C 3 Moderate positive change/impact
ES 0 ES 0 ES 0 ES 0 . . . . . . . . . . . —> 10 to 18 B 2 Positive change/impact
RV RV RV RV . . . . . . . . . . . —> 1 to 9 A 1 Slight positive change/impact
0 N 0 No change/status quo/not applicable
1 to 9 A 1 Slight negative change/impact
Sociological / cultural components 10 to 18 B 2 Negative change/impact
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
19 to 35 C 3 Moderate negative change/impact
S/C S/C S/C S/C . . . . . . . . . . . —> 36 to 71 D 4 Significant negative change/impact
A1 A1 A1 A1 . . . . . . . . . . . —> 72 to 108 E 5 Major negative change/impact
A2 A2 A2 A2 . . . . . . . . . . . —>
B1 B1 B1 B1 . . . . . . . . . . . —> The sensitivity of the ranges is still based on subjective definition
B2 B2 B2 B2 . . . . . . . . . . . —> of range bands. This does not permit more sensitive bands to be easily
B3 B3 B3 B3 . . . . . . . . . . . —> formed, and the present system may not be sensitive enough for use in
ES 0 ES 0 ES 0 ES 0 . . . . . . . . . . . —> marginal or fragile environments. (Table 2). Experiment has shown that
RV RV RV RV . . . . . . . . . . . —> a 5 range band is as sensitive as can be developed for a 5-criteria ma-
trix, and such a range band is shown in Table 2 (with both numeric and
Economic / operational components alphabetic RV values).
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
E/O E/O E/O E/O . . . . . . . . . . . —> Conclusions The RIAM is described here on a theoretical basis,
A1 A1 A1 A1 . . . . . . . . . . . —> though research is continuing to assess the use of the RIAM in different
A2 A2 A2 A2 . . . . . . . . . . . —> project and environmental situations; as well as to computerise the sys-
B1 B1 B1 B1 . . . . . . . . . . . —> tem for ease and speed of use. The system has been tested in studies on
B2 B2 B2 B2 . . . . . . . . . . . —> river and coastal developments; in engineering and tourism projects;
B3 B3 B3 B3 . . . . . . . . . . . —> and has been found to provide a rapid and reproducible basis for assess-
ES 0 ES 0 ES 0 ES 0 . . . . . . . . . . . —> ment of the conditions by highlighting changes, and in comparing im-
RV RV RV RV . . . . . . . . . . . —> pacts from different planning options.

16 17
 The RIAM is suited to EIA where a multi-disciplinary team approach
is used, as it allows for data from different sectors to be analysed against
common important criteria within a common matrix, thus providing a
clear assessment of the major impacts. The discipline imposed by using
the matrix allows the assessors to rapidly record their judgements. Objec-
tivity is ensured by means of the defined criteria set on scales, which
provide a figure on the judgement made.
By setting up a matrix with defined components, it is possible to
compare the with- and without- project situation; make comparisons
between development alternatives; and provide a basis for ‘what if ...’
scenarios in planning. Multiple matrices can be set up to compare alter-
native strategies and development options, isolate the major positive/
negative impacts, define the temporary and permanent impacts, and
show where mitigation can be effective in reducing negative impacts.
As the definition of components is the initial step in the system,
and such definition is related to the project specific conditions, the RIAM
can be used both as a screening tool for project options, as well as method
of detailed impact assessment in specific stages in the development pro-
cess. This system of checking with defined components also permits a
rapid and reliable system of evaluation of EISs. Because of its simple nature,
and the ability to use the matrix even where data is poor (by defining
assumptions beforehand), the RIAM is an ideal tool for Initial Environ-
mental Evaluations (IEE) as well as recording the results of a full EIA.

References
Bisset, R., 1988. Developments in EIA methods. In: P. Walthern (ed.), Environmental
Impact Assessment – Theory and Practise. Unwin Hyman, UK.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 1978. National Environmental Policy Act –
Regulations. Federal Register, 43, 55978-56007. Washington DC.
CEU (Council of the European Communities), 1985. Council Directive on the assess-
ment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.
Official Journal of the European Communities, Dir. 85/337/EEC.
CEU (Council of the European Union), 1997. Council Directive on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official
Journal of the European Communities, Dir. 97/11/EC.
DANIDA (Danish International Development Agency), 1994. Environmental
Assessment for Sustainable Development.
EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development), 1996. Environmental
procedures. London.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R. & A. Chadwick, 1994. Introduction to Environmental Impact
Assessment. UCL Press. UK.
Morris, P. & J. Biggs, 1995. Water. In: P. Morris & R. Therivel (eds), Methods of Environ-
mental Impact Assessment. UCL Press, UK.
Wathern, P., 1988. An introductory guide to EIA. In: P. Walthern (ed.), Environmental
Impact Assessment – Theory and Practise. Unwin Hyman, UK.
World Bank, 1988. Environmental Guidelines. Environmental Department.

18